Interference No. 103,611
In view of our finding above with respect to conception by
the senior party Miller, the other issues raised by the parties
are moot.4
Judgment
Judgment as to the subject matter of count 1, the sole
count, is awarded to John E. Miller, the senior party. On the
present record, the party Miller is entitled to a patent with its
claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 14-21 and 23-36. The party Stevens is not
entitled to a patent with its claims 1-15.
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
(...continued)
parties, the above figures are supporting embodiments of the
invention at issue in this proceeding. This fact is
unchallenged.
4 There can be no derivation by Miller from Stevens without prior
conception on the part of Stevens. Davis v. Reddy, 620 F.2d 855,
205 USPQ 1065 (CCPA 1980).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007